Slashdot Mirror
USPS Service Kiosks Taking Pictures of Customers
NW writes "According to FOIA documents obtained by EPIC new Postal Service self-service postage machines take portrait-style photographs of customers and retain them for 30 days." IBM is the contractor behind the kiosks. Note that the kiosk is supposed to not complete the transaction if it determines the photograph has been compromised, so simply covering the camera is unlikely to work. As the cost of cameras and digital storage approaches zero, is it inevitable that every machine you interact with will take your photograph and store it?
How about wearing GWB rubber mask? or even Nixon for that matter.
Return of the ex-presidents.
This is not the sig you are looking for...
Now let's all overreact as if there aren't cameras watching you in almost every store these days.
So does this mean that a paper bag over the head is not just for sex anymore?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
A privacy issue my g/f will care about. She hates having her photo taken!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Clearly this is simply because USPS wants to make their own version of hotornot
It's to catch the terrorists, you see. We'll never violate your privacy (because you have none now).
The stamps were printed with my portrait on them.
What is the point of this? I mean really, who is going to try to knock over a stamp machine. It's not exactly an ATM.
I think the 30 day storage timeframe is pretty optimistic.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't know how anyone could claim that this is a necessary invasion of privacy. Taking pictures of us while we're sending mail? How often is the mail used in incidents of terrorism? Definitely not often enough to warrant photographing anyone who tries to send a package, and making it so that the machine doesn't work if you won't let your picture be properly taken.
Say your branch IS used for terrorist activities. Say a mail bomb, or anthrax threat. You can bet that if you're an arab you're going to be getting a visit from the FBI.
of counsiling anyone who has to look at these pictures and realize how ugly we all are? Who hear goes to the post office dressed for success? Who? Tell me? I see that hand in the back row, thank you sir. The horror. The horror.
When you use these machines, you no longer have to wait in line and goto the counter to mail anything that weighs over 16oz; you can mail items up to 70lbs without ever having to see a postal clerk. I suspect its to keep people from mailing things that they shouldn't.
Since stamps are readily convertible into cash at face value or near, I would expect similar protection on stamp machines as I would for cash machines...
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Now I have to pull my tinfoil hat down over my whole face!
Could someone please explain why the government feels the need to have pictures of people on file like this? This is crazy.
I'm reminded of Aldous Huxley's 1984. This is the first step toward telescreens!
As tech savvy people, we need to get the word out about this and put these sorts of invasions of privacy to a stop. Making the citizen the object of state knowledge is the first step toward subjugation and elimination of freedom.
As an open source programmer, gun owner, and opponent of the current political order, I see this as a direct attack on my civil liberties that must be dealt with at once. The government has already tried to take our constitutionally protected rights to bear arms. Give them a couple years and Microsoft will be using their own private telescreens to weed out dissident hackers and sending them to "reprogramming camps" in the Carribean.
Well, I'll pass on the rum drink thank you! Get out there and stop these fascists!
A Proud Member of the Reality Oriented Community.
I'm unsure how I feel about this. On one hand, I value my privacy, and I dislike such intrusions.
On the other hand, I value the freedom of public places, and the freedom to take pictures of whatever you wish.
It boils down to an argument I had with a friend of mine a while back. We were in a public place, and a third party took a picture of him. He became furious, and demanded that the person take no more picture, nor distribute the one he had already taken. (The third party was not known to either of us; he wasn't just some stranger)
Now, I calmly explained to my friend that, since he was in a public place, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the other person could indeed take his picture whether he liked it or not. I cited prior cases and current laws regarding such things. (I'd recently done research for a class on just that topic.)
He became even more angry. "I don't care about his rights. He has a right to be an asshole, but that doesn't mean he should be! I don't want my picture taken!"
The guy took his picture again for good measure (nice shot of an angry face), and we all walked away chuckling.
To further muddy the waters, consider that digital photography, like p2p applications and globalization, is fast-growing and un-stoppable. There's no magical way to prevent someone from taking your picture. In the end, your picture can be taken whether you like it or not, and there's nothing you can do about it.
I don't believe that people have a right to privacy, but I do believe that people have a right to protect their privacy as best they can within the confines of reasonable law.
My friend, for example, could avoid public places and close his curtains, but he could not assault photographers.
Public places are just that: public. Whether you like it or not, people can see and record your actions.
Then again, this isn't just a person: it's a government entity. Should corporations/governments have the same rights as individual people? What if this were a private company, instead of the USPS? Would that make the issue any different?
What if it was just some guy standing near USPS boxes taking pictures of people?
It's a complicated issue with no simple answers.
GeekNights!
Late Night Radio for Geeks!
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic Flamebait Troll Redundant
Positive: Insightful Interesting Informative Funny
Nothing to see here
I am sick of people saying that any honest type of person wouldn't mind . Just because I'm an honest person doesn't mean I want pictures of every little thing I do kept by the government.
Say, you're an honest person, right? You wouldn't mind if the government kept logs of all your telephone conversations, would you? Or how about if they PUBLISHED the logs? I mean, you're honest and all, what do you have to hide? Say, since you're an honest person, would you mind if we put a bug on you and kept ALL your conversations?
This is not an example of a strawman fallacy, I'm simply showing how far this "you shouldn't mind it if you're not doing anything wrong" backward thinking can be taken.
I say that BECAUSE I'm an honest person, I don't want the government taking pictures of me when I send a package.
OK. So explain to me how this is left wing drivel? I mean, the Right are the people who historically are interested in less government interference in the lives of normal people. It's the guys on the left with their bigger government/control everything mentality who should be happy about this.
So isn't this then technically right wing drivel?
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
Even if you stand in line at a post office, there is a camera trained right on your face at the counter. This happens at practically every bank and government institute already. Nothing new here except a new tool for law enforcement.
Of course if you're into mail fraud or anthrax then this just might affect you, sorry.
I am supposed to tolerate something just because it's already been done? Thanks but no thanks. Just because we have been taught that we have no privacy in public doesn't mean we should have cameras trained on us at every turn.
Soon the cameras will be inside your house but it will be ok because they are everywhere else.
As the cost of cameras and digital storage approaches zero, is it inevitable that every machine you interact with will take your photograph and store it?
Yes, it is inevitable. Dammit.
Thank God the cost of anal probes and specimen storage is not approaching zero.
- kgj
-kgj
As far as the ATM example goes, that's different. We know that the ATM is taking pictures to protect us. It's the bank's security system implemented on our behalf. It means if someone steals our card and uses it, there's a greater chance of catching the culprit.
The Post Office situation is a little bit wierd. We've never had a system that guarantees a picture of the sender will be associated with a particular bit of mail, still more that the sender would be unaware of this. It has implications, good and bad. It's a little disconcerting the implementers were so secretive about it that it required a FOIA request to get the information.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
No, don't you realize that it's left-wing drivel because the poster fancies himself as some sort of paragon of right-wing virtue and, since he disagrees with something he seems to have read into the commentary, it must be left-wing drivel.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
I don't get it. I put my NAME on the packages I'm mailing. Why do I care if my picture is taken as well? If someone else mails anthrax with my return address on the box. I'll be happy the picture they took isn't of me.
Fix Your Own TV - RiddledTV.com Avoid the Landfill
What's the point of photographing the people who buy stamps? It's not like, when a stamp is used to commit a crime, you can track it back to the photo by serial number. Unless...
Anyone taken a very close look at a stamp recently?
than people realize.
If you have one of those shopping cards, they can track your purchases. If you travel, you're photographed at every point, especially in Europe. If you buy stamps, your photographed. Welcome to the US police state. Orwell may have written fiction, but damn if it isn't coming to fruition.
I voted for Bush, but I have since had many second thoughts on why I did. I have voted Republican since I was 18, thinking that voting for lowering my taxes, having a small government, etc. would be beneficial. Bush is now performing a power grab unlike anything in history, US or foreign. It's scary as hell.
On a side note, I know a guy that works for a major East Coast ISP. He tells me that during the course of his working there over the last several years, that it is becoming more commonplace for employers doing background checks on potential employers to contact ISPs and request surfing logs . Believe it or not. So now, in addition to having employers run a credit check, they are now delving into what you may be surfing to see if you are trustworthy in their eyes. Sick and invasive. I can understand this if one is going through a securit clearance, but to work in the average job?
Wow... I need to buy my own private island.
Stand at attention, maggot!
On one hand, I value my privacy, and I dislike such intrusions.
Oh, we know what's in your hand, boo-boo, when you're in private. No need to clarify, Sparky. Now get on those knees and give me twenty!
It's a complicated issue with no simple answers.
Hah! Typical! We can't ba having this sort of mamby-pamby, nancy-boy, wibbly-wobbly, clap-trap, hoo-hah here, toots! Youse either for it or agains'it. This is Slashdot! Global repository of supergeniuses like "gamerdood69" and "spoogloriousspoo193" and "wileycoyoteesq"! No mistakes are made here! You will bow to the monochromatic wisdom!
So get your wet panties out of their twist, girlie, and pick your side.
--- Ban humanity.
Has there been a run of stamp-machines getting broken into? All of the stamp-machines locally are in post offices, which have video cameras in every corner anyway.
For that matter, is this a real privacy issue? Considering that you can buy stamps online, in your local hallmark store, or even through the mail to a P.O. box, I'm not too concerned about the post office taking my picture.
Now if they start putting cameras on the soda machines, then I'll get upset. And I won't even bring up the condom dispenser question...
Oops. Too Late.
In case you didn't know/realize it, ATMs (Automated Teller Machines) have been taking your picture for over 20 years...
The retention times for those pictures vary with the institution, but it could conceivably be years...
I worked for Diebold back in the 80s and on an almost weekly basis I was tasked with operating the video gear for bank security and FBI investigators...
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!
The kiosks in question aren't stamp machines (which have been around for 40 years or more), but a complete self-service post office. You can buy postage, mail letters, mail small packages, etc. It takes credit cards, paper currency and coins.
In other words, it *is* a lot like an ATM.
Glad someone said it. The government has tried to use the "if you don't have anything to hide" argument for decades. It was crap then, it's crap now.
SINCE I don't have anything to hide, you should stay the heck out of my business. The US was founded on a strong distrust in everyone, the government included. Just look at the Constitution. With a few exceptions, it primary purpose it to protect the people from the government, and for good reason.
What's worse is the arguement that, since the government already has so much data compiled on me already, that this won't hurt... Are you sure? Don't contribute to or defend the problem just because you feel like you already lost.
I want my angy mobs in the street, dammit...
It may be paranoid but it's not "left wing". Lefties would WANT the gubmint keeping track of everything. Gee, I thought Righties were against gubmint intervention in everyone's daily life. It's funny how the modern times have completely reversed the Left/Right concept.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Ever hear of the UniBomber?
This is specifically because of him.
You used to be able to drop off a sufficently stamped parcel in any mail drop. After the UniBomber scares you were required to take packages over a certain size and/or weight into the office in person. This is simply a way to allow the conveinance of a mail drop with the security of personal delivery. A camera is already in my house (4 in fact) I controll them, no-one else.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
I worked on the software (the retail bit of it, not the bit that takes photographs - when I was on the project, that bit wasn't even there) for this piece of kit.
We had some great fun with the coin machine. We had bags of coins plus the coin/bill acceptor for testing. When work had been going on too long, I used to like emptying the acceptor of everything but pennies, then buying a 1c stamp with a $20 bill. The thing went off like a machine gun firing out pennies, it was friggin' cool.
It also did a bit of a Las Vegas style jackpot dispense with all of them full - in change it could give (IIRC, it was 1998 when I worked on the software for the pilot) quarters, nickels, pennies and Susan B dollars. (It didn't dispense dimes. I was told because dime dispensing is unreliable, and the machine tended to choke on them). Again, 1c stamp with a $20 bill, and Ker-ching - it simultaneously fired coins from all four coin stores.
At least I worked out what to do with surfeit pennies - instead of keeping them in a jar or bagging them up and paying one of those machines to count them, you can spend 1c coins in the postal vending machines (or could when I was working on them). Great way of getting rid of your shrapnel.
BTW: Whenever you take a package to a post office, if it's got IBM kit, you're using my code. I wrote the scale driver (amongst other things).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
The left generally keeps out of people's private lives, but has a record of getting more involved in limiting the rights of organizations - businesses, etc. The right generally does have a record of interfering in people's private lives, proposing laws on sex, on what you do with your bodies, proposing funding for imposing a set of beliefs on people, etc, but is more liberal when it comes to the rights of organizations (except trade unions, they *hate* trade unions.)
When the left talks about systems to enlarge government, it tends to do so about replacing corrupt private groups with accountable public bodies (it may be flawed in doing so, but that's the mentality), rarely about making individuals change their private behaviour. When the right talks about systems to enlarge government, it tends to talk about more draconian penalties for breaking laws, about passing morality laws, and about making security more intrusive and bureaucratic.
When most on the left talk about reducing government, they talk about giving individuals rights. When the right in America talks about reducing government, they usually talk about giving regional bodies such as the States more rights, simply transfering rights from one government to another, in some cases giving those governments more extreme rights than the national government had. The perfect government for a left winger provides social security (pensions, welfare, possibly healthcare), a public, accountable, infrastructure, and some semblance of security and law and order, on a national or international level. The perfect government for the right provides military security on a national level, and draconian neo-fascist religion-imposing governments on a State level. I know which I'd prefer.
And yes, I'm aware there are those on the left who occasionally stray in to the territory of the right, but there equal numbers who do vice versa.
Always amuses me to hear right wingers pretend to be "pro-liberty". Kind of like the Confederate States didn't go to war over slavery, oh no, they were "pro-States Rights". No they *@$%ing weren't, they were panicing because a law they'd imposed on free states forcing free states to return escaped slaves was about to be overturned, a probable harbringer for an eventual end to slavery. What the hell was "pro-States Rights" about that?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
On the day of Smith's execution, the person who gave Smith $20 and a bottle of Thunderbird to send the package laughs a slow, evil laugh and heaves a sigh of relief.
The end. And everyone lived happily ever after &c. The solution to this problem is improved scanning of cargo to be loaded onto planes, not a wholesale violation of civil liberties. Either that or accept that having a free and open society has its dangers and consider those dangers as the price of a better quality of life.
-b.
Please keep in mind:
1984 is NOT a HOW-TO!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Ben Franklin
:(){
The "I'm an honest person so, I don't care" argument is very old and most analogies, such as yours, are lost on such people. The best analogy I have heard so far is much simpler.
Ask them how they would feel if they were sitting in a restaurant and someone at the next table was staring directly at them the entire time. Most people find this very disconcerting and sometimes react with great hostility. That is how I feel when someone, the government or otherwise, is constantly recording my activities no matter where I go. I don't have to be hiding something to not like being stared at.
When presented with this scenario, most people begin to understand and are less likely to present the "I'm an honest person" retort.
The kiosk at my local post office is clearly labeled that pictures are being taken. Contrast that to the "black balls" you see hanging from the ceiling at most retail stores now.
There is a clear distinction between public and private space. In public, the government can put up cameras because it is a public space and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In private space, only the property owner or a person designated by the owner can put up a camera. They are well within their rights to do this, provided they don't put a camera in an area where an individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom stall. The police cannot put a camera in a private space, or aim a camera into a private space, without a warrant. I realize you value your privacy, but keep in mind that public places are by definition not private, and that the government won't be putting cameras in private spaces anytime soon, as it would pretty much require the constitution to be gutted first.
Step 1: Print 8x10 picture of goatse
Step 2: paste onto stiff posterboard, add handle.
Step 3: Cut eyehole(s) as appropriate.
Step 4: Label back "Back - toward friendly"
Step 5: Hold in front of face while using kiosk.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Two different people doing bad things is not really a lot. More people are killed in hit and run accidents every day. So with your logic, everyone should wear cameras looking out for rogue cars?
c# - Wait, it's not pronounced coctothorpe?
I once came across a postage stamp machine that was incorrectly set up. It had the 20 stamp booklets available for 2 cents each. I needed to buy stamps, so I saw that, was curious, and hit the button. Imagine my surprise when a booklet of 20 stamps fell out and the machine read that I had $4.98 still available.
:)
:D
Naturally, being the evil person that I am, I took advantage and cleaned out that slot. Ended up with over 200 of those little booklets and still got back a dollar.
It was a weekend, nobody was around, never got caught. And I'm still using those stamps to this day.
The kiosks don't accept cash ... I'd expect more of an outrage over that than there is a camera(s) in the machine storing pictures.
The camera part is pretty obvious and easily spotted - it's a silver colored square that's difficult to miss. Contrast this with pinhole cameras that are often well hidden and difficult to spot - pinhole cameras are sometimes used in conjunction with a traditional camera(s) in ATMs, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there is more than one camera aimed at/inside some of those kiosks.
Ron Bennett
Cool, then we should get rid of that law on taking pics down women's blouses, since of course there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
All the upskirt sites, rejoice!
As Dr. Strangelove said, it's not a deterrent IF YOU KEEP IT SECRET.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
"Suck my dick!" --Ron Jeremy
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
dig out your usama binladen or tricky dicky masks and wear them when you use the machines... then see what happens. What can they do??? You have a right to wear a party mask in public??? surely you have.. or will they make that illegal too.
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I understand surveillance and the idea of retaining data about an individual to aid in possible future prosecution, but why on a stamp machine? ATMs get tampered with, and the people using them get robbed while at the machine. I see the point of ATMs housing cameras.
Postal Stamp dispensers are not what I would consider a potential crime stop worthy of monitoring with a camera. Is this some anti-terrorism plan? We didn't have pictures of the 9/11 terrorists boarding the airplanes, but we still knew who they were pretty quickly after the attacks.
Funny what the government thinks up to protect me. Personally, I think Uncle Sam is getting a little senile in his old age.
I love those Kiosks. Its great for mailing packages at midnight. Have to pay by credit card. However, you do not sign a receipt. So, maybe the picture could be used in a dispute? I know, I am reaching. Since the picture is kept for 30 days, and it can take that long to see an unauthorized charge, it can't really help in a dispute.
Stick a piece of tape over the camera when you see it. Since this disables the machine, the lost revenue may force the postal service to reconsider their design.
wherever you go - malls, stores, gas stations you are being continually monitored and recorded. you have no idea how long they keep your face on file. what's all the cribbing about? get over it - the US is probably the only place wherever people talk the most about privacy and end up having the least!
BP http://www.card-central.com
When those kiosks went in to the local Post Office, they had a greeter who explained their function and features. It was explicity part of the "script" that the transaction was accompanied by a photograph for security purposes.
Seems to me someone needs some PayPal donations to subsidize their fight for your freedom so they announced this as an FOIA issue. Oh, what do you know, donations are the first item on their main page!
How does the camera figure out whether the picture has been "compromised." Is this just as simple as determing the alpha value of the snapped photo to see if you put your hat over the lens? Could there be a locator behind you on the wall that the camera looks for to make sure it isn't compromised? If not, why not hold up a magazine picture or almost anything that has some contrast with different shaped objects and such. Maybe they have a running video that only saves the frames when you run the transaction. That way it could constantly process the images and if something funny starts happening. Like a major image change from a parking lot to the cover of Seventeen being held in front of it (not that the Tween crowd uses stamps, that's saved for old South Koreans), the camera could lock the kiosk for a certain period of time. It might stop a fast moving fat person (they could roll) from buying stamps. No more renewing your subscriptions to Pie of the Month Club.
i agree that you don't have the expectation of privacy (as in getting nekkid) in "public" places, but what about the freedom to assemble? which goes with the assumption that you won't be persecuted for assembling in certain places/supporting particular causes. i think the common belief/expectation is that the general public should be able to go where they like in public without fear of being tracked/recorded/stalked/oppressed. i'm gonna be investing in a few balaclavas...
Once upon a time it was mandatory that notices be put up informing people if they are being recorded. Has that changed? (I haven't seen one of these new machines yet, so I don't know if they carry a notice.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It is a philosophical quote: a political mindset. Marx had many quotes that are wrong in the frame of capitalism and Adam Smith generated many quotes that are contrary to a planned economy. Were they right or wrong? That depends on your own sociopolitical/economic concepts and goals.
For a truly free state the Ben Franklin was right on, but many (most?) people these days don't _want_ a truly free state: consider the millions of people who consider a prohibition of random searches and seizures to be a quaint idea that is little more than an idealistic suggestion. No less a figure than Abraham Lincoln considered the Constitution to be a rough guideline that could be suspended at will by a single individual (refer to his elimination of habeas corpus). Was that justified and necessary? Those who were thrown in jail without reason would probably say no, but everybody else had to decide for themselves.
So are those willing to sacrifice liberty for security undeserving of either? Personally I say that Ben was right smack spot on. But then again I don't believe in entitlements.
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
stouch (adj.) So staunch, it hurts.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
the government won't be putting cameras in private spaces anytime soon
Not, but I'm sure it is a very Patriotic Act to gain remote controll of your web cam.
And to monitor your power usage (hey, you might be trying to grow some of that evil hydroponic devil weed).
And when there's a camera on every street light looking at liscense plates (gotta catch those red light burning bandits), it's gonna be a breeze to track your car... right to the mall, where every store front tracks your unique compilation of RFID tags and cameras from every angle watch your every move.
Each of these things, by themselves, aren't a big deal, right? So there's no reason (aside from tin-foilliness) to object to any of these small, incremental erosions of privacy, right?
Baby steps... baby steps.
You can't take the sky from me...
I realize you value your privacy, but keep in mind that public places are by definition not private, and that the government won't be putting cameras in private spaces anytime soon, as it would pretty much require the constitution to be gutted first.
The current administration has already proven that they have both the desire and the ability to drastically change our laws while keeping the public thinking that it is in their best interests for the government to do so.
Just wait for the terrorists to begin living right in a middle-class neighborhood acting as any other family. Then the government will want to curb the ability for "terrorists" to create cells right in our own backyards by slowing inching cameras closer and closer to our homes.
Remember, the government is just watching out for us. Right?
Isn't this in violation of the newly enacted privacy protection laws? I would be very surprised if they could actually get away with doing this.
Back in college, I had a gas mask I had picked up at an army surplus store. You have no idea how much fun you can have walking around in public wearing a gas mask. I think the best was when I walked up to the Information desk at a book store and asked if they had any books on paranoia.
Redundancy is good And also good.
stouch (adj.) So staunch, it hurts.
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
Indeed the analogy is flawed but, it does cause most people to have have a greater understanding of why supposedly honest people, with nothing to hide, resent constant surveillance.
Additionally, I personally, don't have any problem with the USPS system. These machines use credit and debit cards to perform their functions and having a photograph of the person performing the transaction is simply a means of preventing fraud, just as it is with the ATM.
I do, however, dislike the increasing amount of surveillance in general. "Security" cameras, facial recognition systems and other systems are proliferating at, what I deem to be, an alarming rate. These systems are either specifically intended to track individuals or could easily be re-purposed to do so and they are increasingly "everywhere". Perhaps I do suffer paranoia, as the AC stated earlier. Regardless, it is a means of control that I resent.
To offer another flawed analogy, try this scenario. You are an honest person with nothing to hide. You go to a party at a friend's. While there, you socialize, dance, drink, commit a faux pas or two and generally have a good time. You don't make an ass of yourself or do anything that you shouldn't, you just loosen up and have a good time.
Now, suppose that someone conspicuously set up a video camera in the corner to capture everything on tape. Would you still behave in the same manner and have as good a time, or would it make you feel uncomfortable?
Are you a great dancer? Most people are terrible dancers, despite what they might think, and wouldn't care to have their efforts documented. What if you spilled your drink on yourself? It isn't really a big deal, similar things happen to everyone all the time but, would you like it recorded for you friends to laugh at for years to come? It is my opinion that most people would feel uncomfortable about having the party documented like this. Just look at how people stiffen up and conversation stops when Uncle Bob swings the camcorder in their direction. Of course there are extroverts out there that truly don't care or even enjoy it. These are the people that we see, making fools of themselves, on America's Funniest Videos.
Some people feel the same discomfort about public surveillance. Most people say they don't care about it because they are not consciously aware of it happening. They do not see the "hidden" cameras. I see lots of them, everywhere I go. There are probably even more that are truly hidden that I don't see. What are the images being used for? How long are they retained? Who has access to them?
Knowing all this, can you honestly say that your behavior is not altered, in anyway, by public surveillance? If your behavior is being altered, do you like the idea that someone else is controlling you?
Sorry but that is the very definition of public. Not private.
So you alright with cameras in public restrooms then? Most places are public to use but private in the sense of information disclosure. When I am on the street, only people who already know me recognize me and link whatever I am doing to my identity. I keep my privacy in regard to strangers and people watching security cameras for criminal activity. Unless they post MPEGs of juicy bits on the web, which happens to be illegal.
On the other hand, post office kiosks link my picture to at least address of the recepient and probably my own identity, as they will likely require use of credit card of driver license with a mag stripe. Any judge can issue a court order to disclose it. If you are a witness in a criminal trial, do you really want the would to know you are taking "anonynous" HIV tests every year because defense is trying to undermine your credibility.
Oh sure, I don't want anonymous pictures in public restrooms either. But for most activities, your privacy is safe if there is no link to your identity.
There is a clear distinction between public and private space.
First, I disagree with the principle of your statement, I don't believe that distinction is all that clear. Second, it is entirely possible to revisit the distinction and redefine it.
In the most famous example of this, the Quebec Supreme Court ruled that cameras in public spaces were a type of privacy invasion because the knowledge that you were being recorded diminished a citizen's ability to enjoy the public space.
(I can't find the citation at the moment.)
There is clearly another way of looking at things. It is not necessary for us to accept the "public space" excuse as irrepairable.
Realistically, most people in the U.S. are more likely to experience problems due to misguided and overly zealous government attempts to "protect" them, than to be directly affected by a terrorist attack. It's not a question of which gets your heckles (sic) up more, it's a question of which is most likely to have a direct effect on you. The answer to the latter question is "Homeland Security".
Make no mistake, one of the primary purposes of Homeland Security is to cover the government's collective ass when the next attack happens. "We tried everything - from a color-coded warning system, to forcing mothers to drink their own milk at airports, right down to photographing everyone who buys a stamp! What more could we have done?"
The problem with giving up liberty for security is that there's no exchange rate between the two -- you can't trade one for the other. Don't confuse a bureaucratic immune response with an intelligent response to security threats.Actually, depending on your point of view, some statements can be both right and wrong at the same time. "This sentence is false" can be thought of as being both right and wrong.
Plus, the camera in this kiosk takes one picture (presumably), so it's more like a stranger briefly glancing at you. Not at all the same as being stared at.
Except the Kiosk stores the picture for 30 days and the person glancing at you does just that, glances at you.
Now, if he glanced at you and then drew your portrait...